Immigration laws have changed over the years to make it easier to deport noncitizens convicted of crimes, even nonviolent crimes. But that does not mean they should be treated unfairly in court — a point the Supreme Court drove home last week by ruling that lawyers for noncitizens must advise their clients if a guilty plea would put them at risk of being deported.
Jose Padilla, a commercial truck driver, Vietnam veteran and native of Honduras, has lived legally in the United States for 40 years. He was arrested in Kentucky after he was found with a large amount of marijuana in his tractor-trailer. He was charged with drug offenses that would make his deportation virtually mandatory.
When Mr. Padilla asked his lawyer about the consequences of pleading guilty, he said he was told that he did not need to worry about his immigration status since he had been in the country so long. When he faced deportation, Mr. Padilla argued that he pleaded guilty only because of that erroneous advice. The Supreme Court of Kentucky rejected his claim. It said his right to effective assistance of counsel did not apply because deportation was merely a “collateral” consequence of his conviction.
The Supreme Court voted 7-to-2 to reverse. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a 5-member majority, said judges used to have considerable discretion about whether a noncitizen should be deported after being convicted of a crime. Because much of that discretion has been taken away, correct legal advice is more important than before for immigrants. Justice Stevens said it was wrong to dismiss deportation as a “collateral” issue because deportation is nearly automatic in many cases.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/opinion/06tue2.html?th&emc=th
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
